strength affect on range

[Mark1733]

Is there any rule that affords greater distance for a thrown/hurled weapon and bows based on strength modifier? For example, if the range increment is considered an average range at +0, then someone with +3 bonus to strength could throw extra distance because they can throw harder. For example, a spear has 20 ft range increment. Lets say each +1 bonus adds 5 ft to the range. So effectively, the barbarian with 16 strength (+3 modifier) can throw the spear 35 ft per range increment at. The same could apply to projectile weapons. Crossbows which do not rely on the attacker's strength would get no effect.

I know the strength adds to damage of a thrown weapon, but it seems like you get no benefit for distance from strength. I don't think the attack bonus is sufficient since it is based on dexterity, right? I think that would be a good house rule to encourage more creative weapon selection and use.

Mark

 

[Andre]

I could see the reasoning for throwing something relatively heavy and unaerodynamic - a heavy rock, a heavy hammer, etc. The distance such objects travel is determined primarily by strength.

However, most missile weapons are lightweight, where aerodynamic design and the user's technique has far more impact on distance traveled than relative strength. It seems to me unlikely that additional strength would make a significant difference. Give Conan a baseball - can he really throw it further than a trained soldier with a 10 Str? Give him a shot put, however, and the difference will be striking.

I guess what I'm saying is Strength only really seems to have much impact when the average person has difficulty lifting and throwing the item. Below a certain weight, more Strength won't add much, if anything, to the distance traveled.

 

[Mark1733]

I see your point, but I think also think that when my son (who's 10) throws a baseball (str 6), I (with a mod Str of 9) throw it further by several yards. In real life, 5 feet can be deceiving visually as negligible, but it can make the difference when you are playing a game that requires moving in 5 feet increments to make an attack.

 

[Nebten]

Yah but using that example, you have to think of the mechanics of how one throws. You can get two adults but one could use only their arm to throw something vs. somebody who gets their whole body into it. A little more distant example is saying that weightlifters should be great boxers but could get knockedout since they don't know how to throw a punch properly.

Best example would be quarterbacks in football since they are throwing a moving targets. Just because you have the biggest arm doesn't mean its the most accurant. There are guys that can sling it 70 yards, but they can't hit the target 20' away.

But to answer your question, there are not rules in play that you are asking for. The only thing that would be close would be the Brutal Throw feat. While it does not extend the range increment, it makes you more accurate for using only your strength for thrown weapons.

 

[Ashtagon]

I definitely wouldn't allow Str to affect the range of a bow, ever. A high Str might let you draw the string back farther than the bow is desigend for, but all that would do is cause excessive vibration and strain in the bow itself, which would actually hurt the accuracy of teh weapon, as well as increase wear and tear on the weapon.

 

[Hereticus]

Two bonuses that i allow for a high Strength:

Each +1 bonus increases the maximum range categories by one.

Each +2 bonus increases base move by 5.

 

[El Mahdi]

I definitely wouldn't allow Str to affect the range of a bow, ever. A high Str might let you draw the string back farther than the bow is desigend for, but all that would do is cause excessive vibration and strain in the bow itself, which would actually hurt the accuracy of teh weapon, as well as increase wear and tear on the weapon.

However, if a bow was designed for strength, then it is certainly appropriate if you want to houserule in an increased range. Not all bows are created equal. Take a standard longbow with a pull of 80 lbs., and fire it next to a British longbow (*masterwork) with a pull of 180-200 lbs. with the same weight and length arrows, and I think you'd see some significant differences in their maximum range (*however, I'm not saying all British longbows were masterwork, just most).

 

[Ashtagon]

*sigh*

The D&D rules on composite bows and strength have messed up so many people's ideas on archery it isn't funny.

Every bow, composite, simple, short, long, compound (well, maybe not compound, they are kind funky, but not relevant to fantasy games), whatever, has a "draw weight", which basically corresponds loosely to strength. If you are weaker than the draw weight, accuracy will suffer badly if you are able to draw it at all. If you are stronger, using more strength than the draw weight design would allow for will merely cause excess vibration in the bow, reducing accuracy slightly and potentially damaging the bow.

The way bows should be written is to have a Strength ability rating. If you meet that, you can use it normally. If you don't, you take a -4 attack penalty with the weapon. No extra attack or damage bonus for exceeding the strength requirement.

 

[El Mahdi]

*sigh*

I believe it goes without saying that if a bow is designed for strength, then the strength value of the bow is the minimum strength necessary to use the bow. I'm also pretty sure nobody said the opposite was true, especially since that's in the RAW, so I don't understand why there would be any frustration or exasperation expressed concerning that.



Also, why exactly would a compound bow be kind of funky? The draw weight of a compound bow still equates to the amount of force required to pull it back. The only advantage a compound bow has is once it's drawn, it only requires about 80% of the draw force to hold it drawn. Doesn't seem too hard to model with fantasy RPG mechanics. Since it requires less strength to hold a draw (not for the initial pull), then a bonus to hit, same as any other masterwork bow, shouldn't be outside of the realms of realism. Also, since even compound bows on the upper end of the draw strength spectrum, are still only about half as powerful as the upper capabilities of the famed British Longbow, I really don't see how they would be unbalancing or "not relevent" in a fantasy RPG. Personally, I think it would be pretty cool to have a player character design themself a fantasy version of a compound bow.

For me, the truly extraordinary thing is that anyone would be capable of effectively and accurately firing a bow with a pull of 180 to 200 pounds. If anything screams "fantasy", it's that. Yet the reality is that such extraordinary archers actually did exist with abilities that exceed the abilities of modern day archers.

However, I think you are absolutely right that bows should be written to have a strength ability rating. Since this is the houserules forum, this also seems like the perfect place to discuss and develop exactly that. So again, I'm not sure why any posts or ideas on this subject should elicit frustration or exasperation.




So, in order to further the conversation on whether strength should make a difference on the range of a bow, I'd contribute this:

If a bow has a strength rating (built for a minimum strength requirement that has a positive ability modifier - as per the RAW), then along with adding the equivalent ability modifier to any damage, it makes sense to me that the range of the bow could be increased. For that, I'd go with Hereticus's idea of adding an extra range increment for each +1 of the weapon (or if that's too much, one extra range increment for each +2 or +3). However, if someone of a higher strength than the minimum required for the bow uses the bow, then the range of the bow should not increase further (same as the RAW for extra damage with bows). Only the strength of the bow matters.

As per the RAW, if someone posessing lower strength than the minimum strength of the bow, attempted to use the bow, then they suffer a -2 penalty (that is in addition to the -4 penalty if they are also non-proficient with the weapon). I don't see any reason why you couldn't houserule this to your -4 penalty (plus the non-proficiency penalty). Or even better, use the RAW's -2 penalty, plus an additional -1 for every point of difference between the strength modifier of the weapon and the strength modifier of the user (for example: a composite bow of strength 12, a +1 modifier, used by someone with a strength of 8, a -1 modifer, would have a penalty of -4 to use the bow - -2 from the rules, -2 for the difference in ability modifier).

The addition of these few simple houserules, can very easily take care of any percieved wonkiness in the rules. I'm really not seeing how "the D&D rules have messed up so many peoples ideas about archery". However, I do find that idea "funny".

 

[Random Axe]

I think the OP was only talking about actual thrown weapons as opposed to all missile weapons, so let's back away from Strength bows and so on.

In our House rules, we allow a +1' range increment per STR score over 10. A STR 11 character gets a +1' range inc, for a total possible max increased range of 5'. A STR 18 fighter gets +8' range inc, total max increased range of +40' (because thrown weapons max range is 5 r.i.).